Charles Darwin and the "Tree of Life"

[Youwerecreated]

That's total BS. Fossils can be dated by atomic methods. Once the age of a stratum is known, if you find that stratum in another area you can safely assume the fossils there are of the same age. Your explanation of the method is circular and, therefore, ludicrous in that it in no way describes how scientists really go about determining age.

How is the age of stratum determined ?

So do you deny fossils are used to determine the age of strata ?

Of course not. If the fosssils found are a certain age, so is the stratum. Strata can also be aged without fossils by atomic methods. Once that's done strata found around the world that have the same pattern of strata are assumed to bew of the same age. That's the way it works. How does that have anything to do with creationism? It would seem to throw that theory completely out the window. Since things obviously weren't created at the same time and many species found today aren't found in the past, evolution would seem to be the answer. The only way to reconcile those facts would be to backtrack and claim multiple creations over billions of years, which is totally unbiblical. I really don't see where you have a logical leg to stand on in this discussion.

How do you know the different layers of strata were not the result of the same cataclysmic event ?

Why would it matter if dolphins were found in different layers of strata then trilobites ? are you saying Dolphins didn't die at the same time as trilobites ?

I believe what scientist are seeing is the result of a global flood. I was not there so there is many things that can't be explained.

With all the weight that was placed on the earth with the global flood, that could have produced plate tectonics and no telling what all happened. Just a theory though.


Dating methods are conducted off presuppositions,if the presuppositions are in error so is the date that is reached. That does not sound like a method that is reliable.

You're forgetting dates are reached by many dating methods that are known to be flawed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I asked you how what you were asking proves macroevolution and you did not attempt an answer, other then to say its possible to get new information through those mutations. Dr. Spetner said there is no way the mutations you cited can produce the information needed for macroevolution.

Oh you don't like that I accidentally didn't answer a single question you put forth? How many have you purposely avoided at this point? Dr. Spetner over a decade ago wrote on a topic you STILL actually distinguish from microevolution at a genetic level. You haven't even provided a creationist copied and pasted propaganda. Why is it that you think no creationist can actually differentiate the two at the molecular level? Oh no! Another question!

Have you ever seen one organism evolve into a destinct new organism ? if you have explain.

Well, actually yes speciation has been observed. We have that knowledge now. But I'm not getting into yet another topic with you for you to avoid, produce copied and pasted garbage or mangle if you can't even tell me the difference between micro and macroevolution at the genetic level.


You really are describing the signs of schizophrenia. I'm not saying that to be mean, I think you really should talk to a doctor. Please, describe what you saw further.

Really ? like when evolutionist's say a fish went extinct 65 million years ago,and a few years ago they find one still living. There was another creature they said evolved into another creature and became a land animal, but wow it didn't show any change at all from the fossils they had of this creature and it was still a good swimmer before it supposedly evolved i'm drawing a blank on the name of the fish or creature whatever it was. Yes they had to overhaul the story.

YET AGAIN you show that you actually don't understand the basic concepts of evolution. One species evolving from another does not by default make the initial species extinct. If we take a finch and isolate it on say the galapagos islands, and they evolve, the original finches found thousands of miles away do not all suddenly drop dead.

That is funny ,they date fossils by the strata they were found in and date the strata by the fossils found in it. Wow that is science ?

That is completely wrong, and yet you put it forth as if it were fact. Are you really still wondering why people find you and other creationists as liars, underhanded, and disreputable people?

Speciation was the result of cross breeding, Not new information that comes from mutations. Dr. Spetner made it clear macroevolution has never been observed. Your theory is based on speculation not evidence.

Examples of speciation.

Video Rapid Speciation: AM v3 n4 - Answers in Genesis

What you call evolution is actually only the result of cross breeding.

The information that produced the diversity of life has always been present from the time of creation and after the flood.

 

[konradv]

How do you know the different layers of strata were not the result of the same cataclysmic event ?

Why would it matter if dolphins were found in different layers of strata then trilobites ? are you saying Dolphins didn't die at the same time as trilobites ?

We know the different strata are from different times from radio-active dating methods.

Of course I'm saying dolphins didn't die the same time as trilobites, because when trilobites lived dolphins wouldn't exist for 100s of millions of years to come.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How do you know the different layers of strata were not the result of the same cataclysmic event ?

Why would it matter if dolphins were found in different layers of strata then trilobites ? are you saying Dolphins didn't die at the same time as trilobites ?

We know the different strata are from different times from radio-active dating methods.

Of course I'm saying dolphins didn't die the same time as trilobites, because when trilobites lived dolphins wouldn't exist for 100s of millions of years to come.

You're are convinced because your theory say's so ?

How do you know they did not exist at the same time ?

Once again, then how do you explain how fossils and strata that is considered to be older be on top of fossils and strata that is considered to be younger ?

Why are marine fossils found so far inland ?example trilobites.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I asked you how what you were asking proves macroevolution and you did not attempt an answer, other then to say its possible to get new information through those mutations. Dr. Spetner said there is no way the mutations you cited can produce the information needed for macroevolution.

Oh you don't like that I accidentally didn't answer a single question you put forth? How many have you purposely avoided at this point? Dr. Spetner over a decade ago wrote on a topic you STILL actually distinguish from microevolution at a genetic level. You haven't even provided a creationist copied and pasted propaganda. Why is it that you think no creationist can actually differentiate the two at the molecular level? Oh no! Another question!


Well, actually yes speciation has been observed. We have that knowledge now. But I'm not getting into yet another topic with you for you to avoid, produce copied and pasted garbage or mangle if you can't even tell me the difference between micro and macroevolution at the genetic level.


You really are describing the signs of schizophrenia. I'm not saying that to be mean, I think you really should talk to a doctor. Please, describe what you saw further.


YET AGAIN you show that you actually don't understand the basic concepts of evolution. One species evolving from another does not by default make the initial species extinct. If we take a finch and isolate it on say the galapagos islands, and they evolve, the original finches found thousands of miles away do not all suddenly drop dead.

That is funny ,they date fossils by the strata they were found in and date the strata by the fossils found in it. Wow that is science ?

That is completely wrong, and yet you put it forth as if it were fact. Are you really still wondering why people find you and other creationists as liars, underhanded, and disreputable people?

Speciation was the result of cross breeding, Not new information that comes from mutations. Dr. Spetner made it clear macroevolution has never been observed. Your theory is based on speculation not evidence.

Examples of speciation.

Video Rapid Speciation: AM v3 n4 - Answers in Genesis

What you call evolution is actually only the result of cross breeding.

The information that produced the diversity of life has always been present from the time of creation and after the flood.

Yet again I will reiterate that this is not speculation, but reproducible and observable fact. Just because you're using outdated information from three decades ago does not mean the intelligence of the world stopped in the previous century.

There is a plethora of reproducible verifiable evidence that completely shatters your fragile beliefs, and the ONLY defense you have is sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending it doesn't exist, as you have so often demonstrated in this thread.

 

[konradv]

How do you know the different layers of strata were not the result of the same cataclysmic event ?

Why would it matter if dolphins were found in different layers of strata then trilobites ? are you saying Dolphins didn't die at the same time as trilobites ?

We know the different strata are from different times from radio-active dating methods.

Of course I'm saying dolphins didn't die the same time as trilobites, because when trilobites lived dolphins wouldn't exist for 100s of millions of years to come.

You're are convinced because your theory say's so ?

How do you know they did not exist at the same time ?

Once again, then how do you explain how fossils and strata that is considered to be older be on top of fossils and strata that is considered to be younger ?

Why are marine fossils found so far inland ?example trilobites.

I'm convinced not because of a theory but because of well established scientific measurements that tell us different strata are millions and billions of years different in age. That tell us that they did not live at the same time.

Plate tectonics explains why the crust has folded in places and you find some inversion. That's why strata are dated, to prove the time line.

Once again the earth has changed much over the eons. At one time the Atlantic Ocean didn't exist and Middle America was an inland sea. Fossils of marine life are found at the peaks of the Himalayas as the subcontinent of India drove a seabed 5 miles into the air!!!

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh you don't like that I accidentally didn't answer a single question you put forth? How many have you purposely avoided at this point? Dr. Spetner over a decade ago wrote on a topic you STILL actually distinguish from microevolution at a genetic level. You haven't even provided a creationist copied and pasted propaganda. Why is it that you think no creationist can actually differentiate the two at the molecular level? Oh no! Another question!


Well, actually yes speciation has been observed. We have that knowledge now. But I'm not getting into yet another topic with you for you to avoid, produce copied and pasted garbage or mangle if you can't even tell me the difference between micro and macroevolution at the genetic level.


You really are describing the signs of schizophrenia. I'm not saying that to be mean, I think you really should talk to a doctor. Please, describe what you saw further.


YET AGAIN you show that you actually don't understand the basic concepts of evolution. One species evolving from another does not by default make the initial species extinct. If we take a finch and isolate it on say the galapagos islands, and they evolve, the original finches found thousands of miles away do not all suddenly drop dead.


That is completely wrong, and yet you put it forth as if it were fact. Are you really still wondering why people find you and other creationists as liars, underhanded, and disreputable people?

Speciation was the result of cross breeding, Not new information that comes from mutations. Dr. Spetner made it clear macroevolution has never been observed. Your theory is based on speculation not evidence.

Examples of speciation.

Video Rapid Speciation: AM v3 n4 - Answers in Genesis

What you call evolution is actually only the result of cross breeding.

The information that produced the diversity of life has always been present from the time of creation and after the flood.

Yet again I will reiterate that this is not speculation, but reproducible and observable fact. Just because you're using outdated information from three decades ago does not mean the intelligence of the world stopped in the previous century.

There is a plethora of reproducible verifiable evidence that completely shatters your fragile beliefs, and the ONLY defense you have is sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending it doesn't exist, as you have so often demonstrated in this thread.

Nope,i am convinced the things seen by biologist are explained by presuppositions from brainwashed people. Even though they have NEVER observed one destinct kind of organism evovle into a destinct new kind of organism.

Bacterium is still bacterium,cats are still cats,dogs are still dogs,horses are still horses. they are all the result of information that was always present and through sexual reproduction. Not new information from mutations , all evolutionist observe is microevolution.

You really need to learn the difference between micro and macroevolution as Dr.Spetner say's. Mutations do not produce the information needed for macroevolution to take place if it does provide the information that produces macroevolution through mutations. Not small feature and trait changes within a group of organisms that comes through sexual reproduction.

 

[konradv]

Mutations do not produce the information needed for macroevolution to take place if it does provide the information that produces macroevolution through mutations.

Not only is your premise wrong, this sentence is circular. Mutatations don't provide info for macroevolution, unless info produces macroevolution through mutations?!?! Expain, PLEASE.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Mutations do not produce the information needed for macroevolution to take place if it does provide the information that produces macroevolution through mutations.

Not only is your premise wrong, this sentence is circular. Mutatations don't provide info for macroevolution, unless info produces macroevolution through mutations?!?! Expain, PLEASE.

Neo darwinism is the preferred theory of evolution. The theory is based on mutations and natural selection being the engines that drives evolution. While mutations can produce new information in small scale changes but not the information that would allow macroevolution to take place. Most mutations are neutral or harmful to the organism. It is very rare for beneficial mutations and extremely rare for them to produce change that is needed for macroevolution to take place. There is so many conditions that would have to be met for a change from mutations to be preserved that it is highly unlikely that the new information could survive natural selection.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Mutations do not produce the information needed for macroevolution to take place if it does provide the information that produces macroevolution through mutations.

Not only is your premise wrong, this sentence is circular. Mutatations don't provide info for macroevolution, unless info produces macroevolution through mutations?!?! Expain, PLEASE.

Change in any organism is based on new information without new information there would be no change. But i believe the diversity we see in all life was the result of cross breeding and information that was there all the time. That fits with the creationist view. That God created according to each kind. There was enough information for animals to cross breed and produce the many different breeds within a kind that we see today.The many different breeds of cats,dogs,horses,and plants supports this view.

 

[konradv]

Mutations do not produce the information needed for macroevolution to take place if it does provide the information that produces macroevolution through mutations.

Not only is your premise wrong, this sentence is circular. Mutatations don't provide info for macroevolution, unless info produces macroevolution through mutations?!?! Expain, PLEASE.

Change in any organism is based on new information without new information there would be no change. But i believe the diversity we see in all life was the result of cross breeding and information that was there all the time. That fits with the creationist view. That God created according to each kind. There was enough information for animals to cross breed and produce the many different breeds within a kind that we see today.The many different breeds of cats,dogs,horses,and plants supports this view.

Where did dolphins come from, if not macroevolution, since there's about a quarter of a billion years between the death of the last trilobite and the first appearance of dolphins?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Mutations do not produce the information needed for macroevolution to take place if it does provide the information that produces macroevolution through mutations.

Not only is your premise wrong, this sentence is circular. Mutatations don't provide info for macroevolution, unless info produces macroevolution through mutations?!?! Expain, PLEASE.

Change in any organism is based on new information without new information there would be no change. But i believe the diversity we see in all life was the result of cross breeding and information that was there all the time. That fits with the creationist view. That God created according to each kind. There was enough information for animals to cross breed and produce the many different breeds within a kind that we see today.The many different breeds of cats,dogs,horses,and plants supports this view.

Where did dolphins come from, if not macroevolution, since there's about a quarter of a billion years between the death of the last trilobite and the first appearance of dolphins?

That is your theory, that which can't be proven.so in other words it's just an opinion.

You can't prove when or where trilobites and dolphins showed up.

Have you not learned that dating systems are based on ones presuppositions before they even start the dating methods?If you fill all the blanks in concerning theories with speculation ,what is the theory based on ? We have many natural phenomenon's that we can't fully explain but there will always be one to give an explanation according to his or her view but that does not mean the opinion was accurate. That is the same thing going on with every theory that is taught as fact like,Neo Darwinism.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Mutations do not produce the information needed for macroevolution to take place if it does provide the information that produces macroevolution through mutations.

Not only is your premise wrong, this sentence is circular. Mutatations don't provide info for macroevolution, unless info produces macroevolution through mutations?!?! Expain, PLEASE.

Change in any organism is based on new information without new information there would be no change. But i believe the diversity we see in all life was the result of cross breeding and information that was there all the time. That fits with the creationist view. That God created according to each kind. There was enough information for animals to cross breed and produce the many different breeds within a kind that we see today.The many different breeds of cats,dogs,horses,and plants supports this view.

Where did dolphins come from, if not macroevolution, since there's about a quarter of a billion years between the death of the last trilobite and the first appearance of dolphins?

This is my belief and theory,all life began approximately 6,000 years ago. Many organisms vanished in the global flood. The creatures cross bred to produce the many different breeds according to each kind. All living organisms were found to be with others of their kind and now and then some crossed over and produced offspring that became new breeds. That is the simple answer to the diversity to life. One that can be supported by the evidence.

The only way a new kind or species can be produced is two different groups of the same kind cross breed that is a fact.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Last night i watched a show on the universe. There was a Physicist which also had a background in astrology explain that our whole solar system is a black hole,and that we owe our lives to a black hole because he say's life could not exist without a black hole. Talk about circular reasoning,but how do you test to know we are in a black hole ? if no one is able to enter a black hole how can you support such a view ? talk about a vivid imagination.

The same can be said for the theory of macroevolution,it is untestable and has never been observed.

 

[konradv]

Change in any organism is based on new information without new information there would be no change. But i believe the diversity we see in all life was the result of cross breeding and information that was there all the time. That fits with the creationist view. That God created according to each kind. There was enough information for animals to cross breed and produce the many different breeds within a kind that we see today.The many different breeds of cats,dogs,horses,and plants supports this view.

Where did dolphins come from, if not macroevolution, since there's about a quarter of a billion years between the death of the last trilobite and the first appearance of dolphins?

This is my belief and theory,all life began approximately 6,000 years ago. Many organisms vanished in the global flood. The creatures cross bred to produce the many different breeds according to each kind. All living organisms were found to be with others of their kind and now and then some crossed over and produced offspring that became new breeds. That is the simple answer to the diversity to life. One that can be supported by the evidence.

The only way a new kind or species can be produced is two different groups of the same kind cross breed that is a fact.

You believe something proven to be false by atomic dating methods. If you cling to your belief, you're in essence saying that God lies to us. Otherwise, why would he give us the brains we have and then arrange things to frustrate our understanding of how the world works? Your theory, therefore, is not supported by the evidence because the fossils we've been talking about are more than 6,000 years old.

 

[konradv]

Last night i watched a show on the universe. There was a Physicist which also had a background in astrology explain that our whole solar system is a black hole,and that we owe our lives to a black hole because he say's life could not exist without a black hole. Talk about circular reasoning,but how do you test to know we are in a black hole ? if no one is able to enter a black hole how can you support such a view ? talk about a vivid imagination.

The same can be said for the theory of macroevolution,it is untestable and has never been observed.

Macroevolution is proved by the fossil record. You can't say otherwise without also saying God lies to us. He gave us the brains to come up with all sorts of scientific tests to determine age, but if after all that the results are false, the only answer seems to be that God plays mind games with us. Is that REALLY what you want to hang your hat on?!?!

 

[Youwerecreated]

Where did dolphins come from, if not macroevolution, since there's about a quarter of a billion years between the death of the last trilobite and the first appearance of dolphins?

This is my belief and theory,all life began approximately 6,000 years ago. Many organisms vanished in the global flood. The creatures cross bred to produce the many different breeds according to each kind. All living organisms were found to be with others of their kind and now and then some crossed over and produced offspring that became new breeds. That is the simple answer to the diversity to life. One that can be supported by the evidence.

The only way a new kind or species can be produced is two different groups of the same kind cross breed that is a fact.

You believe something proven to be false by atomic dating methods. If you cling to your belief, you're in essence saying that God lies to us. Otherwise, why would he give us the brains we have and then arrange things to frustrate our understanding of how the world works? Your theory, therefore, is not supported by the evidence because the fossils we've been talking about are more than 6,000 years old.

The problem with atomic dating is you don't know the conditions of gases in the air several thousand years ago, let alone, millions and billions of years ago, to get an accurate reading. Once again questionable evidence you're relying on.

God does not lie to us. The earth has gone through some serious changes since creation. God does not play games with our minds,it's man own desire to think he can trace back everything God did and how he did it without being present. If there is confusion it's on mans doing not Gods doing.

Once again man was not there to record these fossils it is simply guess work on the ones that say how old they're.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Last night i watched a show on the universe. There was a Physicist which also had a background in astrology explain that our whole solar system is a black hole,and that we owe our lives to a black hole because he say's life could not exist without a black hole. Talk about circular reasoning,but how do you test to know we are in a black hole ? if no one is able to enter a black hole how can you support such a view ? talk about a vivid imagination.

The same can be said for the theory of macroevolution,it is untestable and has never been observed.

Macroevolution is proved by the fossil record. You can't say otherwise without also saying God lies to us. He gave us the brains to come up with all sorts of scientific tests to determine age, but if after all that the results are false, the only answer seems to be that God plays mind games with us. Is that REALLY what you want to hang your hat on?!?!

No,if the fossil record proves macroevolution, which it does not, why did paleontologist's Eldridge and Gould promote the theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium" ? I'll tell you why,it was the lack of transitional fossils to show a slow gradual process of macroevolution. The fossils appeared suddenly, but we know the real reason why. It's because macroevolution is a flawed theory and it never happened. Every fossil was the product of deformity or cross breeding that showed little change within a group.

And the lack of evidence that failed to show all the major groups that supposedly evolved from one group of organism's to another group of organism's.

You know the graphs i am speaking of of how an ape went to another creature to another creature eventually winding up a man.

Here is a reminder.

Pictures of Human Evolution & Timeline of Prehistoric, Early & Modern Man

 

[konradv]

The reason you don't find a lot of transistional fossils is because the numbers initially of "evolved" organisms is very small until such time as their differences give them an advantage over their "unevolved" peers or they find a new niche to exploit and their numbers explode. That's the gist of Punctuated Equilibrium. It doesn't in any way disprove macro-evolution, it merely explains why transitional fossils can be hard to find.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The reason you don't find a lot of transistional fossils is because the numbers initially of "evolved" organisms is very small until such time as their differences give them an advantage over their "unevolved" peers or they find a new niche to exploit and their numbers explode. That's the gist of Punctuated Equilibrium. It doesn't in any way disprove macro-evolution, it merely explains why transitional fossils can be hard to find.

The lack of transitional fossils, i believe is strong evidence, against macroevolution.

Darwin said,

" if his theory be true there will be many transitional fossils"

but he admitted that was not the case than, and many confirm that is still the case today.

Darwin Expected Innumerable Transitional Forms, but they Do not Exist
Here is what I consider the most important excerpt of the book:

Darwin,“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”

The others.

The following quotations by Drs. Leo Hickey, Preston Cloud, and Vincent Sarich are from a film entitled, The Evolution Conspiracy: A Quantum Leap Into the New Age. (1*) This video contained interviews with these eminent evolutionary scientists, in which they were asked to comment about the prevalence of transitional forms in the fossil record. Their initial reply was that transitional forms were numerous. This answer was based on their definition of "transitional." To them, since they believe evolution is unquestionably true, any fossil of an extinct species is probably a transition between what it evolved from, and what it evolved into later. After these claims were made, they were given the chance to list examples of transitional fossils, fossils clearly showing themselves to be between species. This is the creationists' definition of "transitional." When faced with this definition, they had to admit that there were few or none. Initially they made it sound like evolution was a proven fact, but when questioned by knowledgeable experts, they had to admit that they lacked support from the geologic record.

Dr. Leo Hickey, Director of Yale Peabody Museum:

1. "There are myriad transitional forms. There's really no problem finding transitional forms."

versus his statement of:

2. "One of the things that also makes it a little more difficult in the fossil record is the rapidity with which evolution acts, in very short bursts. It doesn't leave many transitional forms behind."



Dr. Preston Cloud, Director of Geology, UCSB:

1. "In fact there are so many transitional forms between species that we must often fall back on statistical analysis to separate one from the other."

versus his statement of:

2. "The problem of transitional forms is one that all honest paleontologists have a problem with. The geologic record is incomplete. It's incomplete because of erosion that has eroded things away."



Dr. Vincent Sarich, Professor of Anthropology, UCB:

(commenting on how creationism was overthrown by the fossil evidence for evolution)

1. "We have to remember that after all, creationism was what everybody thought not all that many years ago. And creationism was overthrown in the scientific community by evolutionary thinking."

versus his statement of:

2. "Although there must be, from an evolutionary perspective, many transitional forms out there,the likelihood of finding any one of them is extremely low."



The video went on to give another example of an evolutionist who admits there aren't transitional fossils. Luther Sunderland, a creationist and aerospace engineer comments on a letter he wrote to Dr. Colin Patterson, Director of the British Museum of Natural History, concerning transitional fossils. Dr. Patterson, a well known and highly respected evolutionist, had just finished writing a book about evolution. Even though he believes in evolution, Dr. Patterson failed to illustrate any interspecific fossil forms. Dr. Patterson didn't include any pictures of transitional fossils.

"I wrote to Dr. Patterson and asked him why he didn't put a single picture of an intermediate form or a connecting link in his book on evolution. Dr. Patterson now, who has seven million fossils in his museum, said the following when he answered my letter:

'I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossils or living, I certainly would have included it.… I will lay it on the line. There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument.'"

In case you happened to skim over that and missed it, I'm going to repeat this direct quote from Dr. Patterson.

"THERE IS NOT ONE SUCH FOSSIL FOR WHICH ONE MIGHT MAKE A WATERTIGHT ARGUMENT."

This admission has caused Dr. Patterson some grief from some of his fellow evolutionists. Some even said he shouldn't say things that creationists might use. Truthfully, Dr. Colin Patterson's name has come up several times in my readings. I am impressed with his honesty and openness. I understand he believes in evolution, and I respect him for his sincerity. I think he is deceived by evolution, but unlike some evolutionists, as well as some creationists, Dr. Patterson does not impress me as the kind who would stoop to lies, half-truths, and tricks. Such honesty deserves mention. There's no reason he, or any scientist, should have to feel uncomfortable in expressing the truth. To that end, I will show that Dr. Patterson and these others aren't alone in their admission that the fossil record lacks transitional (interspecies) forms. Before evolutionists criticize Dr. Patterson, they should hear what other knowledgeable scientists say.

Before we do that, however, let's look at what we should see in the fossil record if Darwinian evolution is true. Classic evolution theory says that species gradually developed from previous species. In fact, the process was so slow, it would be impossible to pinpoint exactly when a new species emerged. Each generation would possess infinitesimal differences from the previous generation. Only after several thousands, or even millions of generations, would one be able to recognize species differences. This is much like looking at a motion picture. Each frame captures a split second of time. If you look at each frame one at a time, it would be hard to recognize movement. There isn't much change between frames. Only if you look at the frames in rapid succession do you see motion. This is what classical evolution says we should see in the fossil record. Fossils represent individual frames in the movie-of-life. As we discover more and more fossils, the frames in evolution's progress, we should be able to piece them together into a film that shows how life evolved. Like the images on the individual frames in a film, the difference from one frame to the next ought to be too small to distinguish. Fossils should show such gradual changes that eventually we ought to have a fossil record with no exact boundaries between species.

Is this what the fossil record has shown... over the last one hundred and fifty years? The answer is no! The fossil record shows no transitional forms. It didn't when Darwin proposed his theory, and it has gotten worse for the evolutionist ever since.

In his book, Darwin's Enigma, Luther Sunderland reveals much about the truth of the fossil record.(2*)

"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps." (3*)

"Back in 1940, Dr. Richard B. Goldschmidt had faced the horns of this dilemma-of-the-gaps with his hopeful monster theory, the idea that every once in awhile an offspring was produced that was a monster grossly different from its parents." (4*)

"Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum, was collaborating with Dr. Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard and calling their new theory, aimed at explaining the gaps, 'punctuated equilibria." (5*)

"Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago,published an article in the January 1979 issue (vol. 50, no. 1) of the museum's journal entitled 'Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology' in which he stated that the 250,000 species of plants and animal recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin." (6*)

In fact, Dr. Raup actually stated in the article:

"Ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time."

How is this possible, you ask? It is because many of the missing-links used as proof for evolution at Darwin's time have since been discarded by evolutionists because science has proven they weren't links at all. I can't think of any other field of science that presently bases its beliefs on fewer facts than were available one-hundred and fifty years ago.

Dr. Donald Fisher, the state paleontologist at The New York State Natural History Museum, was asked about transitional forms.

"Did Dr. Fisher know of any transitional forms between the higher taxa? He replied, 'Intermediates within families and even within orders, but not between phyla.' Why? His only answer was the standard one—the imperfection of the fossil record."7

E. C. Olson, author of The Evolution of Life said this.

"Many new groups of plants and animals suddenly appear, apparently without any close ancestors." (8*)

Steven Stanley, paleobiologist and professor at Johns Hopkins University spoke out against the gradualistic theory of Charles Darwin. His observations revealed that the fossil record lacks evidence for gradually changes species. Defending the punctuated equilibria view of origins, he said this.

"Having carefully scrutinized data from the fossil record during the past decade, however, I have demonstrated a biological stability for species of animals and plants that I think would have shocked Darwin." (9*)

Luther Sunderland quotes Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, of Harvard, from the June-July 1977, Natural History magazine, showing how Gould agrees with this view of gradualism.

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change,..." (10*)

Sunderland further mentions two comments Dr. Gould made during a lecture at Hobart and William Smith College in 1980.

"The fossil record is full of gaps and discontinuities, but they are all attributed to the notorious imperfection of the fossil record. The fossil record is imperfect, but I think that is not an adequate explanation." (11*)

"The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has known that ever since Cuvier." (12*)

In fact, Mr. Sunderland asked many well known evolutionists for fossil evidence for the gradual rise of insects, the change of fish to amphibians, the transition from amphibians to reptiles, the change from reptiles to birds, the gradual emergence of mammals from reptiles, the evolution of the horse, and the evolution of man. Over and over again they admitted that the fossil record reveals no evidence of gradual changes. Even though millions and millions of fossils have been studied in the last one hundred fifty years, the fossil record is full of gaps between species. If evolution is true, then we should see an abundance of in-between species. Although asked several times by Mr. Sunderland, not one of the evolutionists interviewed could site a single transitional fossil showing a direct connection between any two major groups of animals.

J. Kerby Anderson and Harold G. Coffin, in their book Fossils in Focus, (13*) reveal the same fossil evidence against the Theory of Evolution. They quote three notable scientists, George Gaylord Simpson, David B. Kitts, and Norman Newell. George Gaylord Simpson said this:

"It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution." (14*)

Dr. David Kitts said:

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (15*)

Norman Newell of the American Museum of Natural History adds:

"Experience shows us that the gaps which separate the highest categories may never be bridged in the fossil record. Many of the discontinuities tend to be more and more emphasized with increased collecting." (16*)

According to Dr. Page Krynine:

"Conventional uniformitarianism, or 'gradualism,' i.e. the doctrine of unchanging change, is verily contradicted by all-post Cambrian sedimentary data and the geotectonic histories of which these sediments are the record." (17*)

Others confirm that geology hasn't been kind to those who think they know all the answers about our origin.

"Dr. David Pilbeam, curator of the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale and later professor of anthropology at Harvard, wrote an article in 1978 entitled 'Rearranging Our Family Tree' in which he stated that we had been wrong in the past and that he was convinced we would not hit upon the true or correct story of human evolution." (18*)

"Richard Leakey summed up the situation on the final Walter Cronkite Universe program. He said that if he were going to draw a family tree for man, he would just draw a huge question mark. He said that the fossil evidence was too scanty for us to possibly know man's evolutionary origin, and he did not think we were ever going to know it." (19*)

Literature is filled with statements from evolutionists who know the fossil record lacks truly transitional forms.

Dr. George Gaylor Simpson, the world's foremost evolutionary paleontologist:

"The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed." (20*)

"This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate." (21*)

"Possibility for such dispute exists because transitions between major grades of organization are seldom well recorded by fossils.… It is thus possible to claim that such transitions are not recorded because they did not exist, that the changes were not by transitions, but by sudden leaps in evolution." (22*)

Dr. E. J. H. Corner, Professor of Botany at Cambridge University:

"Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the theory of evolution—from biology, biogeography,and paleontology, but I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." (23*)

Dr. E. C. Olson:

"The fossil record which has produced the problem, is not much help in its solution..." (24*)

Drs. David Raup and Steven Stanley:

"Unfortunately, the origins of most higher categories are shrouded in mystery: commonly new higher categories appear abruptly in the fossil record without evidence of transitional forms."(25*)

Dr. L. du Nouy:

"In brief, each group, order, or family seems to be born suddenly and we hardly ever find the forms which link them to the preceding strain. When we discover them they are already completely differentiated. Not only do we find practically no transitional forms, but in general it is impossible to authentically connect a new group with an ancient one." (26*)

Dr. A. H. Clark:

"No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon earth, we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediate between the various major groups of phyla."(27*)

"Since we have not the slightest evidence, either among the living or the fossil animals, of any intergrading types following the major groups, it is a fair supposition that there never have been any such intergrading types." (28*)

Dr. Richard B. Goldschmidt:

"The facts of greatest importance are the following. When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions."(29*)

Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Biology, Geology, and the History of Science, at Harvard University:

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." (30*)

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."(31*)

Dr. N. Macbeth:

"The whole aim and purpose of Darwinism is to show how modern forms descended from ancient forms, that is, to construct reliable phylogenies (genealogies or family trees). In this it has utterly failed."32

Dr. Francisco Ayala, professor of biology at the University of California, Davis:

"The evolutionary origins of taxa in the higher categories are poorly known.… Most orders, classes, and phyla appear abruptly and commonly have already acquired all the characters that distinguish them." (33*)

Finally we'll let Dr. Colin Patterson refute his critics:

"We have access to the tips of the tree; the tree itself is theory, and people who pretend to know about the tree and to describe what went on it—how the branches came off and the twigs came off—are, I think, telling stories." (34*)

It's difficult to read through these confessions of evolutionists without getting the idea that something is very wrong with the Theory of Evolution. It leaves one with the impression that the Theory of Evolution is like the "Emperor's New Clothes." Many scientists think other scientists have absolute proof for evolution. Rather than admit they see no proof for evolution themselves, they go along with the crowd, admiring what isn't there. Not wishing to look foolish to their associates, they applaud evolution even louder and defend it all the more. Yet, deep inside, they feel strangely inadequate as scientists because they can't seem to find truth for themselves.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF SCIENCE. . . EMPEROR EVOLUTION IS NAKED!

So you see, Dr. Colin Patterson is not alone when it comes to evolutionists who recognize that geology fails to provide unquestionable proof for evolution. Some just aren't as straight forward about it as he is. Geology fails to prove evolution because fossils, the only historical evidence, fail to prove it. Classical evolutionists firmly stated, and staked their reputations, that someday enough fossils would be found to prove their argument. They were wrong! Over a hundred and forty years of intensive searching has resulted in more and wider gaps between the species. Rather than being a friend to the evolutionists, the fossil record has now become their biggest foe. The historical evidence of the fossils clearly shows that life did not evolve; it was created.

Objections to the Doctrine of Evolution

So no the fossil record only hurts the theory not help it as evolutionist try desperately to reach for evidence. Now there is no doubt students are being taught the fossil record supports the theory but you wind up with a resounding "No it don't" when you look a little deeper.